babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Trudeau proving to be a political heavyweight?

The link is about a week old, but still pertinent. The three points I disagree with him are:

1. I lean more towards scrapping the senate.2. I prefer first-past-the-post (pro-rep would merely give parties even more power), though I could support removing party names from ballots and have then run as independent candidates like in Nunavut.3. I'd say let individual MPs oppose the Charter. Let's remember that the Charter was written near the height of the residential school era, and certain portions thereof, specifically the language provisions, are clearly influenced by the residential-school era notion of two fouding races explicitly excluding indigenous peoples as laid out in the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. I'm sure anyone who reads the Report in light of the Reconciliation Era which we have now entered would have a difficult time stomaching its contents. Add to that that I have not met one indigenous person yet (and I've spoken to many about this) who supports official bilingualism in its current form.

Two other points:

1How can Trudeau support the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human rights when the United Nations High commission for Human Rights has already officially officially ruled against teh separate school system that the Charter upholds? To be fair, Trudeau has never voiced support for the UDHR, but since I have far more respect for the UDHR myself, and the two are clearly in conflit with one another at least on the issue of the Separate school system, Trudeau would have a hard time if pressed to then defend the UDHR while also defending the Charter.

2. Seeing that now Trudeau wants more autonomy for individual MPs, how can he support proportional representation and more autonomy for MPs when the two principles run coutner to one another? In a first-past-the-post ssytem, it absolutely makes sense to give MPs more autonomy, and I personally lean more towards that. However, should we adopt a more pro-rep system, then it would not make sense to give MPs more freedom if it's the party we voted for and not the candidate. Unless of course he means to support more freedom for MPs under the current FPTP system and would change that back under a PR system. If that is his intent, then that would show a rational mind capable of understanding that under FPTP it makes sense that power is held based on what we voted for, and same with PR.

You might be right, Jacob Two-Two. he is not considered to be a great intellectual. However, neither is harper. And as for Mulcair, what is his position on the Charter with regards to the separate school system and other areas where it runs counter to the UDHR? Does he support the charter as is? If so, then how does he defend the separate school system? If not, then what would he change? And what is his position on the language sections of the Charter and their basis on the notion of 'two founding races'?

harper has shown opposition to official bilingualism as it currently stands, but it would seem to me at least that it's mostly for the wrong reasons.

Otavana, Canada gets digged by UDHR because of Ontario's biased public funding for separate/Catholic school system and a public school system. Since Education under the constitution is a provincial matter, no PM would take it on or tell a province what to do. Twice Ontario has been rapped. It's the only province.

Both Quebec and NFL/Labrador requested a constitutional amendment of the federal govt when their provinces decided to not fund religious schools. Thus in Quebec, they now only have French/English schools and it's based on linguistic devisions. In NFL, they were going broke funding denominational schools.

I don't think the Charter is the problem but more so the constitution is the problem. It's the constitution that needs updating because we have moved on since late 1800s when we just had upper and lower Canada, and the protection of minority religious rights in those lands which are now Ontario and Quebec.

Being seen without much for clothing will kill any politicians changes of getting elected. LOL After seeing this picture nobody voted for him because he didn't look like a Prime Minister. That's why Robert went on to win a large majority.

I must confess to being a little spooked by Trudeau's popularity and the apparent readiness of a big portion of the NDP electorate to shift to the Liberals under his leadership.

At the Montreal convention I made a point of asking several MPs and party organizers of my acquaintance how they assessed his impact. None were overly worried but many prepared to wait and see whether he grew into the job.

Among the comments I heard:

- JT was not highly regarded by Rae, Ignatieff or Dion. He was never trusted with any resposibility greater than Critic for Amateur Sport.

- the most common term I heard to describe him was "narcisist". Appraently we realy has an exagerated sense of his own merits and abilities.

- he has never done anythingof note in Parliament, seldom speaking or participating in any meaningful way. His attendance record is poor.

- the NDP would be well-advised to ignore him in the short run. It is inevitable that he will make mistakes . The media will eventually turn on him. The Conservative attack adds will begin to have their effect.

Asked about the impact of the Conservative campaign, 71 per cent of respondents in the poll said viewing an anti-Trudeau ad had not changed their impression of Trudeau. Of those who said the ads had changed their impression, more than half said they felt more positive about the Liberal leader.

When asked for a single word describing the ads, many said they were “disgusting,” “vicious” or “stupid.” Others said they were “amusing” or “typical.”

The poll found that, among those who voted Liberal in the 2011 election, 91 per cent said the anti-Trudeau ad campaign is unfair. Of those who voted for the Green party, 82 per cent said likewise. Among NDP voters, 79 per cent said the ads are unfair. Of those who voted Conservative in 2011, 36 per cent said the ads are unfair.

The only way it matters if people find the ads "unfair" is if this drives voters away from the Cons, but as we've seen many times, it doesn't. The Cons are already well-established as mean, unfair, and lacking in compassion, but their voters don't care.

As for the ads being effective, they can easily be effective even while people are crying about how mean they are. The point isn't the ads themselves, but the unconscious impressions they leave, and how they might be reinforced by Justin's behaviour. If Justin manages not to play into any of the criticisms that are made of him, then he's home free, but all he has to do is make a little slip. People will interpret any mistake that makes Justin seem unprepared or out of his depth as "proof" of the reliability of these vauge impressions in their mind, even if the mistake is small or common. Because of the ads, it all contributes to a general sense of lacking leadership.

Otavana, Canada gets digged by UDHR because of Ontario's biased public funding for separate/Catholic school system and a public school system. Since Education under the constitution is a provincial matter, no PM would take it on or tell a province what to do. Twice Ontario has been rapped. It's the only province.

Both Quebec and NFL/Labrador requested a constitutional amendment of the federal govt when their provinces decided to not fund religious schools. Thus in Quebec, they now only have French/English schools and it's based on linguistic devisions. In NFL, they were going broke funding denominational schools.

I don't think the Charter is the problem but more so the constitution is the problem. It's the constitution that needs updating because we have moved on since late 1800s when we just had upper and lower Canada, and the protection of minority religious rights in those lands which are now Ontario and Quebec.

The Charter is the first part of the constitution, and explicitely upholds the separate sachool system. If the constitution were amended accordingly, the separate school system would not only be illegal, but unconstitutional. so when you say you support the Charter, you're essentially saying you support the freedom of provinces to implement the separate school system.

There was no separate school system in place when BC joined Confederation so there is nothing in the Constitution regarding BC. However BC has a plethora of private schools funded with public money. I detest the fact that we fund everything from religious schools, from most faith traditions, to rich peoples academies all with public dollars. However there is no political party in BC that wants to make it an issue.

I don't see the Constitution having any effect on whether or not private schools get funded. The Charter would come into play if the provincial government funded Catholic schools but not other faith based schools. The BC response is to fund them all faith based or not.

Quote:

The British Columbia government funds more than 85 per cent of its province's private schools. In Canada's westernmost province, independent and private schools receive more than $150 million in funding per year. For a private school to receive one of these grants (which will lower your tuition costs), it must hire only certified teachers and meet the provincial curriculum.

British Columbia may also help you pay for private school through tax breaks. Two particular types of schools are noteworthy here. First, if you send your child to a faith-based school, paying for its tuition may count as charitable donation for which you will receive a tax credit. Similarly, enrolling your child in a school for students with special needs may allow you to claim medical tax benefits.

Here is a list of private schools in Vancouver. There are many more in all the other cites of the province.

Quote:

St. George's School Vancouver, British Columbia St. George's School offers programs from grades one to 12 in Vancouver. Its average class size is 20 to 22 students. Traditional/ Academic, Alternative Day & Boarding 1 to 12 (Boys) $17,170 to $50,500

Collingwood School West Vancouver, British Columbia Collingwood School is a private school in West Vancouver, BC from JK to grade 12. Tuition starts at $7,900. The school is a member of Round Square. Traditional/ Academic Day JK to 12 (Coed) $15,000 to $18,000

Westside Montessori Academy Vancouver, British Columbia Westside Montessori Academy offers programs from pre-school to grade four in Vancouver. Its average class size is 15 to 25 students. Montessori Day PS to 4 (Coed) $4,750 to $8,500

York House School Vancouver, British Columbia York House School offers programs from junior kindergarten to grade 12 in Vancouver. Its average class size is 16 to 20 students. Traditional/ Academic, Reggio-inspired Day JK to 12 (Girls) $16,650 to $17,400

Avenir School Vancouver, British Columbia Project-oriented and integrated curricula allow each student to reach their highest potential with less stress and deeper understanding. Gifted, Alternative Day 5 to 12 (Coed) $2,000 to $8,500

Bodwell High School North Vancouver, British Columbia Bodwell High School in North Vancouver, BC enrols 200 day and 240 boarding students. Tuition starts at $12,560, with scholarships available. Traditional/ Academic Day & Boarding 8 to 12 (Coed) $12,560 to $27,460

Brockton School North Vancouver, British Columbia Brockton School, a traditional private school in North Vancouver, BC offers K to grade 10. Tuition ranges from $12,825 to $14,200. Traditional/ Academic Day K to 12 (Coed) $14,140 to $15,656

Crofton House School Vancouver, British Columbia Crofton House School in Vancouver, BC is a university preparatory school with JK to grade 12 classes. Tuition starts at $16,000. Traditional/ Academic Day JK to 12 (Girls) $17,475

Eaton Arrowsmith School Vancouver, British Columbia Eaton Arrowsmith School offers programs to help students with learning disabilities and runs from grade K to 12. Tuition starts $4,090. Special Needs, Alternative Day K to 12 (Coed) $4,090 to $28,800

Island Pacific School West Vancouver-Bowen Island, British Columbia Island Pacific School offers programs from grades six to nine in Bowen Island. Its average class size is 12 to 18 students. Traditional/ Academic Day & Homestay 6 to 9 (Coed) $11,500

Kenneth Gordon Maplewood School North Vancouver, British Columbia Our school specializes in educating and growing the confidence of students with dyslexia and other learning disabilities in Grades 2 through 9. Special Needs, Alternative Day 2 to 9 (Coed) $19,950

Madrona School Society Vancouver, British Columbia Madrona School Society is a gifted school in Vancouver. It offers programs for grades one to nine with an average class size of six to 14 students. Gifted, Traditional/ Academic Day 1 to 7 (Coed) $16,000

Magnussen School Vancouver, British Columbia Magnussen School employs the use of individual education planning, small classroom sizes, and access to regular physical activity. Alternative Day JK to 9 (Coed) $16,900

Mulgrave School West Vancouver, British Columbia Mulgrave School offers programs from pre-kindergarten to grade 12 in West Vancouver. Its average class size is 20 students. Traditional/ Academic Day PK to 12 (Coed) $6,025 to $17,330

Pattison High School Vancouver, British Columbia Pattison High School offers programs for grades eight to 12 in Vancouver. Its average class size is eight to 12 students. Traditional/ Academic, Alternative Day & Homestay 8 to 12 (Coed) $14,410 to $19,210

St. John's School Vancouver, British Columbia St. John's School offers programs from kindergarten to grade 12 in Vancouver. Its average class size is 14 to 22 students. Traditional/ Academic Day K to 12 (Coed) $13,600 to $17,800

Stratford Hall Vancouver, British Columbia Stratford Hall offers programs from kindergarten to grade 12 in Victoria. Its average class size is 16 to 22 students. Traditional/ Academic Day K to 12 (Coed) $14,200 to $15,600

You have to admit ..if all the cons can come up with are strip fund raisers and Trudeau sporting a moustache ...they are in trouble. All Trudeau has to do and should do if he wants to win is just sit there and look pretty ...stick a soother in his mouth and say nothing , from now until election day.....

Let Mulcair talk policy cause we all know if it is good and popular the Liberals will hijack it like they did in the past...and say we will do that if you vote for us ..that's it all he has to do.

As was just witnessed ..what he says can and will be used against him by the cons...and with media support.

As far as the attack ads go it's all up to the media ..they have run them as a news story giving way more air time than they deserve..so they are pretty well in control of that ...if the Liberals run a good one will they over run it till you have it drilled in your head or just make blip on the radar...there ball. So they can turn it into a backfire or full blown attack at will, it's not really up to the ad it's all about the airplay the pundits allow.

What is going to backfire is the spinelss positive hold hands and sing kumbya ads the liberals are going to play...at this point people want Conservative blood not whimpy Liberal latte crowd ads. but yes I should shut up and let the NDP squeeze up the middle hehehehe

Murray Dobbin argues against the idea of Justin Trudeau being a political heavyweight. Link

those Trudeau quotes are, you know, pretty awesome ...

Dobbin was at his best in that article - a keeper for sure. I mean, you know:

Here's an excerpt -- Trudeau's answer to the question what would Trudeau do if he were prime minister. Read it and weep.

"First thing, you offer support and sympathy and condolences and, you know, can we send down, you know, EMTs or, I mean, as we contributed after 9-11? I mean, is there any material immediate support we have we can offer? And then at the same time, you know, over the coming days, we have to look at the root causes. Now we don't know now whether it was, you know, terrorism or a single crazy or, you know, a domestic issue or a foreign issue, I mean, all of those questions. But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents, at war with a society. I mean, yes, we need to make sure that we're promoting security and we're, you know, keeping our borders safe and, you know, monitoring the kinds of, you know, violent subgroups that happen around."

I think the Justin phenomenon goes further than an initial burst of enthusiasm. It has an Emperor’s New Clothes feel about it. I see the enthusiasm of press and pundits, but a disproportionate amount of this is the politics of reputation, which, as the comments above reveal, can disappear when there is a sober, candid appraisal of his actual performance. The residual popularity of Trudeau the father has made the son a celebrity, and has driven a circular self-reinforcing narrative that is predicated in large part simply on this popularity and celebrity. This has an impact on the polling, which then reinforces the media narrative, thus influencing future polls. This has happened before. It will happen again. However, there is a limit to this cycle.

Another interesting finding is the continued strong performance of the NDP. One might think that a leaderless party, with a largely untested caucus, that had vaulted to unimaginable heights, putatively on the charismatic authority of the now departed Jack Layton, would have fallen back to Earth. The fact that they remain squarely in second place, well ahead of the still hapless Liberal Party, and within striking distance of the Conservative Party, suggests that this interpretation was flawed. ... the stable strength of the NDP under such inauspicious conditions suggests this movement to the NDP was far more than Jack-o-mania. The real forces lie in understanding the new salience of income inequality as an issue (reflected in the relative income characteristics of NDP versus Conservative supporters) and a longer term shift to a more polarized ideological landscape.

I think we need to reread this again. Remember, one of the Liberals main talking points and political strategy (along with many pundits from the MSM) is to repeat, over and over again, that NDP popularity was because of Jack and Jack is gone, so the NDP will go back to 3rd place. This is repeatedly strategically and with effect.

Don't buy it because it is not true. Also we need to remember that the corporate owned media and elites have a very vested interest to ensure their rule is secure with either the Conservatives or Liberals - it doesn't latter if Trudeau is an idiot, as long as he is their village idiot.

But the fact remains, if you were to ask them (and you can bet the Conservatives did, in coast-to-coast focus grouping), lots of Canadians will likely say they do not want the nation’s leader cavorting like Channing Tatum in Magic Mike.

That said, the poison at the centre of the attacks is not the striptease stuff, nor Trudeau’s Pirates of the Caribbean-style facial hair, nor the snide references to his job experience (a “drama teacher,” the narrator sneers, as if drama teachers are somehow less reputable than Justin Bieber).

What is potentially lethal is the ancient, and out-of-context, quote of Trudeau saying these words: “Quebecers are better than the rest of Canada because we’re Quebecers.”

Those words ­— uttered before CTV News cameras in 1999 ­— are deadly. They dramatically buttress the notion that has been at the centre of the Conservatives’ anti-Trudeau narrative for months: That he puts Quebec before Canada. That he, like Stephane Dion, like Michael Ignatieff, owes allegiance to another place, and not Canada first.

It worked in 2008 and 2011; it can work again.

If the Conservatives’ spots are backed by a substantial media buy, then, they will make Trudeau less popular. But Trudeau stubbornly refuses to fight fire with fire. And, like Dion and Ignatieff before him, he is letting the Conservatives define him with non-Liberals before he can define himself.

When asked about the attacks on his first day on the job, Trudeau gave a Trudeau-esque shrug. Canadians are “tired of negativity,” he said.

No, actually, they’re not. Canadians, like voters everywhere, may express a lack of enthusiasm for so-called negative advertising. But the fact remains, mountains of studies have shown that such advertising works. It is the advocacy that voters tend to recall the most, as they head to the ballot box. It is the type of advocacy that has been shown to most affect citizens’ hearts and minds.

The reaction in the mainstream media, and on the Internet, was largely the same as Trudeau’s. Commentators claimed Harper’s ads will backfire, and no sensible person will heed them.

If they look back, these commentators will see they said the same thing when the anti-Dion and anti-Ignatieff barrages started, too. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.

Should we aspire to live in a world where such advertising doesn’t work? Of course.

But we don’t live in such a world.

As I always say: No one likes car crashes, either. But they always slow down to have a look.

I think Trudeau will continue to echo Conservative policy while occasionally saying empty progressive sounding platitudes once in a while. It will be interesting to see if this keeps him popular or not.